IIRC, the option Truman had was to drop the bomb or wage a very bitter, drawn out, guerilla war, with many casualties, because the Japanese were deeply entrenched and determined. Of course that might have just been propaganda. I guess we could have just left the Japanese alone and enforced some "containment" policy, but I think the Allies' pary line was complete and utter capitulation due to the heinousness of Axis behavior during the war. IIRC there were also many hawks advising Truman to use the bomb as a show of power to the USSR and to recieve confirmation that it actually worked.
I agree. However if the government(s) get to them before us we will have to be able to retrieve the hackers from their custody. I propose forming a crack, hacker swat team, highly skilled, and in control of a huge Voltron-like robot capable of flying to the scene, launching an insurgency, rescuing oppressed hackers, and separating into independent robotic tigers in order to escape. Only with a team of elite, Voltron-piloting hackers will we be able to live free of corporate and governmental oppression. Actually south america would be a good base because of the availability of crack for the swat team.
(Note: I'm only half-joking, and will do my part if necessary;)
Is it/really/ just the trademark they don't want used? It seems Apple is very aggressive in routing out anything that seems vaguely Apple-like. It seems they don't even want Aqua themes/without/ their logo, getting out. That is going too far. Sure, take the logo out, but don't attempt to say that people can't make replicas and themes mimicing your OS. That's just plain tyrannical.
This is a favorite topic on Slashdot. Women in Comp Sci, female-related games, and percentage of female presence online - they're all related. It stems from the fundamental social issue that women have always been socialized AWAY from technology (for some reason). It has gotten steadily better, but it is still a big problem. Quotas and lower standards aren't the panacea...women aren't entering because they don't WANT to or aren't interested. They aren't interested because for 18 years they have been implanted with the idea that math, science and technology is not "for them". When we stop socializing females away from science/technology and towards other fields we will start seeing them entering science and technology more qualified and in higher numbers. It doesn't help us one bit to admit a whole bunch of female that are unqualified and uninterested in Comp Sci. They have to/want/ to, and instilling that want, or more accurately, simply refraining from inhibiting it, is a societal issue.
I wholeheartedly agree with the previously submitted comments of Michael Sims and David O. Carson.
Section 1201(a)(1) of the DMCA serves only to extend additional powers outside the realm of copyright law (namely: controlling access to material, not simply the right or ability to copy it) to authors and corporations and to deny extant fair use rights of consumers. Despite merely being unjustly harmful to consumers, I believe extending powers of access control under copyright law is a very dangerous precedent, and could have serious detrimental ramifications on the future of technological development and innovation.
It seems to me that Linux is not just a piece of software. Open Source and Free Software philosophy come with it. A user doesn't gain a Linux system - the community/gains/ a Linux user. To propose that AOL port its software to Linux so the mass market can more easily shift over to Linux is missing the whole point. IMO, if you are going to use AOL, stay the HELL away and keep using windows, and keep paying up to Microsoft. It would seem the AOL mentality would "taint" the philosophical purity of the movement. Linux is not just candy. Running Linux is also a mutual acceptance of the community, Open Source, and Free Software. If you just want a piece of hardware to run AOL, you already have it in a Windows box. The community gains nothing from a mass migration of exploitive users that just want to run AOL. Yes, computers and software are designed FOR users and not the other way around. That doesn't mean, though, that we must pander to the lowest common denominator.
Main Entry: Kelvin Function: adjective Etymology: William Thomson, Lord Kelvin Date: 1908 : relating to, conforming to, or having a thermometric scale on which the unit of measurement equals the Celsius degree and according to which absolute zero is 0 K, the equivalent of -273.15C
And can't I, as an author who has licensed previous code under the GPL, relicense a new version of that code (only my code!) under any other license, say, some proprietary license?
Technically I should be able to license a file under the GPL, add some whitespace, then license the new version for $10K a pop.
Right? The power is in the copyright holder's, i.e. my, hands.
"I'm thinking that Crusoe chips, which are mostly software, should be open source and basically free,"
Yeah, what is UP with you Open Sores people? Why don't you open source hardware so I can get a free computer, already? I would also like my car, my house, my stereo, my furniture, and large appliances open sourced. Thank you.
Aren't copyrights and patents for the good of the society not of the owner? That is the reason they expire right? They are merely an incentive for people to invent and produce new things. They are given exclusive rights to those things for a period of time, after which they become property of the society which enabled them in the first place to create such things. This may seem like reverse tyranny, but corporations do not DESERVE profits, they are not GUARANTEED a market. If that sounds unfair...well, the answer is TOUGH. Nobody has guaranteed corporations that somebody in some other company will not rip off their product. That is a matter of diplomacy and international law. NOT local, or even national law. When the playing field changes it is _corporations_ that are forced to adapt. Society and technology is not here for their sake. When it changes, so must they, and if they don't that's just tough. Then need to get up, dust themselves off and head in a new direction. Not cry and whine that falling hurts and is unfair. I really have no sympathy for the corporate mentality that the world owes them something and must act "fairly" to them. Their existence is incidental to society, not the other way around. And if the world changes so much that corporations must cease to exist...so be it. The world does not mold itself around corporations. Corporations in a free country and free market should be grateful for what they get, not whine that technology is impairing their ability to lock up markets.
My DeCSS shirt from Copyleft.net should be arriving soon. I would like to see them dare to come down and haul me away.
Just as Europe and Asia is the same landmass, the net has many cross-sections which overlay and interconnect. It is entirely associative. There really aren't any distinct categories. There are news sites on tech topics with discussion boards. Is that news? Is that tech? Is that culture? The answer is YES. It has all those attributes. A lot of sites are basically AssociationNet. People who share similar attributes converge on these sites. Sites for pet lovers, sites for tech people, sites for game players, sites for alumni of institutions, sites for people of a given religion, sites for people who like porn. Wherever people share interests there is another strata. There is no "top-level" (which is the fundamental problem with URL naming)...everything is associative.
Given the general rule of everything being associative and uncategorizeable, I do see an exception. There are sites developed BY the community, then there are sites developed by entities outside the community which just need a presence. I guess you could call this a split between "commercial" sites and non-commercial sites (even though many commercial sites are part of the "community" and many non-commercial sites aren't).
I would consider places like *news.com and *BUYMYCOOLWIDGET.com in the "external" group. They are places people go, but are not a/part/ of. Perhaps that is the distinction that needs to be made -- inclusivity. I go to a store to buy something, but I am not PART of that store. I would consider Undernet, TechNet, X-Net, CultureNet, GameNet, and GodNet all under a superset "AssociationNet". CorporateNet and BuyNet would probably be in an "external" or commercial category.
It would be cool, though, if the net could be surveyed against several general attributes (say, N), and plotted in N-space. That would be some cool geography.
All Transmeta really needs to do is give away some SDK that allows people to "plug in" their own ISA, or "flash" the rom or something. People/don't/ need to know the native destination ISA, they just need a mechanism for exploiting the chip's abilities by supplying their own ISAs. I think this would be great for Transmeta, because without breaking compatibility, they would gain all the ISA's that anybody wants to provide. The only issue is a change to the code morphing software spec/implementation/itself/. If this changes, then the SDK has to be re-released, and ISA's will have to be regenerated for the new software, etc.
I think they just want the ball in their park for a while, which is understandable.
Computer components have been getter faster and faster. This may be the start of truly pervasive computing...pervasive in the sense that it will be everywhere, unnoticeable, and unexceptional. All the rules blur, then change when computing is implicitly and immediately accessible to everyone and everything, everywhere, any time. Think of electricity. First it was a novelty, powering the useful light bulb. But soon, when it became pervasive, huge new fields and inventions sprung up because of it. The time between articles proclaiming a new technology or discovery, and its application, get smaller and smaller. This might be the real thing (tm), the nodal point. We might now be starting to take our first step into Neuromancer or the Matrix.
Or this could just be another step in the mundane march of progress...what do I know?
Right...my post is not a rebuttal to yours, just an annotation.
I agree with you..."free" will is not necessarily that different from what we would call "fate". And this is because much of our "will" is determined at a level lower than consciousness (in my analogy the BIOS), and ultimately in chemicals, molecules, atoms.
"If he's right, the dilemma is enormous: we have no particular place to go as a species. We lack a common or universal goal beyond our pre-determined biological nature."
"The standard analysis of why determinism prevents free will is that you can't choose to do something besides your fate."
Or more simply that one state necessarily follows from subsequent states.
Think of our brain as an operating system: At the very lowest level, we have a hardcoded BIOS that pushes us to eat, sleep, reproduce, and whatever else is necessary for the survival of our offspring and genes. On top of this low layer, are many many layers of abstraction, until, at the top, we have something called "consciousness". Now, just as a multitasking operating system _appears_ to be running all programs at once, we _appear_ to be conscious, when it is really just many complicated permutations of very base motives, the lowest of which is eventually molecules and atoms. We have emergent behavior.
Just because I flee from a fire doesn't prove I have "free will", it just proves I have a programmed will to survive. That is my base reaction. Now we have many other layers put on top of that by our intelligence, or socialization. For example, I might appear "altruistic" if I risked my life to save someone else's life. Sure this appears to be "free will"...but it is only "free will" in the sense that I have been socialized and reprogrammed to believe it is in my best interest to save that person.
It's all atoms and molecules. There's no magic here.
Perhaps you're not exactly the perfect person to answer this question, but it seems to me that many companies claim outlandishly large costs of "damage" running in the millions and hundreds of millions, when these things occur. In your opinion, are these claims justified, or are they just scare tactics?
(I know sites like eBay and Amazon, for example, do a lot of business, but really, millions of dollers lost? If I really wanted to buy the book, I could wait three hours till the site was back up, and they wouldn't lose any money. Where do these numbers come from?)
"Geeks/Hackers generally are socially inept, except among are own kind. Basically we don't fit into normal everyday society with non-geeks very well."
Yes...this is exactly the stereotype they reinforce. How ARE geeks/hackers going to be socially accepted if everybody else thinks they are like the Lone Gunmen?
The Lone Gunmen are usually portayed in a manner that reinforces stereotypes. I remember one episode where Mulder/Scully walk in to a dark room and they are huddled about playing Dungeons and Dragons, pictured as some sort of dark cabal.
Dangerousness is reinforced whenever they insidiously "hack" into some system.
I'm a software guy and a hardware wannabe also...but I'm quite aware of pipelining. The fact remains that the pipeline is limited by the slowest component in it. If one of your pipeline stages is memory access, every other stage has to wait at least as long as it takes the memory access stage to complete, to continue on.
With multiple clocks, everything is working asynchronously at the limit of its own circuit. For simple circuits this will be very fast.
Well, I subscribe to the creed that wealth is an accident that happens to you while you're pursuing your interests. Some of the most successful hackers never sought fame and fortune...it just happened to them. Take the whole Linux/Apache/ thing. Success happened accidentally while hackers were trying to do cool stuff. I think the worst thing you can do to your career as a "technologist" is force something, and the worst thing you can do to your hacker ethic is to "sell-out".
Well, ok...but we also use sidecar extensively which is a deamon that listens for callbacks on port on the client and prompts the user for their Kerberos passwd through the kerb libs. We have sidecar implemented pretty well on Windows and the Mac, but not so well, or not at all in *nix. I don't doubt that there are fine Kerberos packages out there, but integration is the problem. How exactly do we "prompt" a user at the command line, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC, the option Truman had was to drop the bomb or wage a very bitter, drawn out, guerilla war, with many casualties, because the Japanese were deeply entrenched and determined. Of course that might have just been propaganda. I guess we could have just left the Japanese alone and enforced some "containment" policy, but I think the Allies' pary line was complete and utter capitulation due to the heinousness of Axis behavior during the war. IIRC there were also many hawks advising Truman to use the bomb as a show of power to the USSR and to recieve confirmation that it actually worked.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
I agree. However if the government(s) get to them before us we will have to be able to retrieve the hackers from their custody. I propose forming a crack, hacker swat team, highly skilled, and in control of a huge Voltron-like robot capable of flying to the scene, launching an insurgency, rescuing oppressed hackers, and separating into independent robotic tigers in order to escape. Only with a team of elite, Voltron-piloting hackers will we be able to live free of corporate and governmental oppression. Actually south america would be a good base because of the availability of crack for the swat team.
;)
(Note: I'm only half-joking, and will do my part if necessary
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
Is it /really/ just the trademark they don't want used? It seems Apple is very aggressive in routing out anything that seems vaguely Apple-like. It seems they don't even want Aqua themes /without/ their logo, getting out. That is going too far. Sure, take the logo out, but don't attempt to say that people can't make replicas and themes mimicing your OS. That's just plain tyrannical.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
This is a favorite topic on Slashdot. Women in Comp Sci, female-related games, and percentage of female presence online - they're all related. It stems from the fundamental social issue that women have always been socialized AWAY from technology (for some reason). It has gotten steadily better, but it is still a big problem. Quotas and lower standards aren't the panacea...women aren't entering because they don't WANT to or aren't interested. They aren't interested because for 18 years they have been implanted with the idea that math, science and technology is not "for them". When we stop socializing females away from science/technology and towards other fields we will start seeing them entering science and technology more qualified and in higher numbers. It doesn't help us one bit to admit a whole bunch of female that are unqualified and uninterested in Comp Sci. They have to /want/ to, and instilling that want, or more accurately, simply refraining from inhibiting it, is a societal issue.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
Damn! Should have included 1201(a)(2) also.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
I wholeheartedly agree with the previously submitted comments of Michael Sims and David O. Carson.
Section 1201(a)(1) of the DMCA serves only to extend additional powers outside the realm of copyright law (namely: controlling access to material, not simply the right or ability to copy it) to authors and corporations and to deny extant fair use rights of consumers. Despite merely being unjustly harmful to consumers, I believe extending powers of access control under copyright law is a very dangerous precedent, and could have serious detrimental ramifications on the future of technological development and innovation.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It seems to me that Linux is not just a piece of software. Open Source and Free Software philosophy come with it. A user doesn't gain a Linux system - the community /gains/ a Linux user. To propose that AOL port its software to Linux so the mass market can more easily shift over to Linux is missing the whole point. IMO, if you are going to use AOL, stay the HELL away and keep using windows, and keep paying up to Microsoft. It would seem the AOL mentality would "taint" the philosophical purity of the movement. Linux is not just candy. Running Linux is also a mutual acceptance of the community, Open Source, and Free Software. If you just want a piece of hardware to run AOL, you already have it in a Windows box. The community gains nothing from a mass migration of exploitive users that just want to run AOL. Yes, computers and software are designed FOR users and not the other way around. That doesn't mean, though, that we must pander to the lowest common denominator.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
Main Entry: Kelvin
Function: adjective
Etymology: William Thomson, Lord Kelvin
Date: 1908
: relating to, conforming to, or having a thermometric scale on which the unit of measurement equals the Celsius degree and
according to which absolute zero is 0 K, the equivalent of -273.15C
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
And can't I, as an author who has licensed previous code under the GPL, relicense a new version of that code (only my code!) under any other license, say, some proprietary license?
Technically I should be able to license a file under the GPL, add some whitespace, then license the new version for $10K a pop.
Right? The power is in the copyright holder's, i.e. my, hands.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
"I'm thinking that Crusoe chips, which are mostly software, should be open source and basically free,"
Yeah, what is UP with you Open Sores people? Why don't you open source hardware so I can get a free computer, already? I would also like my car, my house, my stereo, my furniture, and large appliances open sourced. Thank you.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
Aren't copyrights and patents for the good of the society not of the owner? That is the reason they expire right? They are merely an incentive for people to invent and produce new things. They are given exclusive rights to those things for a period of time, after which they become property of the society which enabled them in the first place to create such things. This may seem like reverse tyranny, but corporations do not DESERVE profits, they are not GUARANTEED a market. If that sounds unfair...well, the answer is TOUGH. Nobody has guaranteed corporations that somebody in some other company will not rip off their product. That is a matter of diplomacy and international law. NOT local, or even national law. When the playing field changes it is _corporations_ that are forced to adapt. Society and technology is not here for their sake. When it changes, so must they, and if they don't that's just tough. Then need to get up, dust themselves off and head in a new direction. Not cry and whine that falling hurts and is unfair. I really have no sympathy for the corporate mentality that the world owes them something and must act "fairly" to them. Their existence is incidental to society, not the other way around. And if the world changes so much that corporations must cease to exist...so be it. The world does not mold itself around corporations. Corporations in a free country and free market should be grateful for what they get, not whine that technology is impairing their ability to lock up markets.
My DeCSS shirt from Copyleft.net should be arriving soon. I would like to see them dare to come down and haul me away.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
Just as Europe and Asia is the same landmass, the net has many cross-sections which overlay and interconnect. It is entirely associative. There really aren't any distinct categories. There are news sites on tech topics with discussion boards. Is that news? Is that tech? Is that culture? The answer is YES. It has all those attributes. A lot of sites are basically AssociationNet. People who share similar attributes converge on these sites. Sites for pet lovers, sites for tech people, sites for game players, sites for alumni of institutions, sites for people of a given religion, sites for people who like porn. Wherever people share interests there is another strata. There is no "top-level" (which is the fundamental problem with URL naming)...everything is associative.
/part/ of. Perhaps that is the distinction that needs to be made -- inclusivity. I go to a store to buy something, but I am not PART of that store. I would consider Undernet, TechNet, X-Net, CultureNet, GameNet, and GodNet all under a superset "AssociationNet". CorporateNet and BuyNet would probably be in an "external" or commercial category.
Given the general rule of everything being associative and uncategorizeable, I do see an exception. There are sites developed BY the community, then there are sites developed by entities outside the community which just need a presence. I guess you could call this a split between "commercial" sites and non-commercial sites (even though many commercial sites are part of the "community" and many non-commercial sites aren't).
I would consider places like *news.com and *BUYMYCOOLWIDGET.com in the "external" group. They are places people go, but are not a
It would be cool, though, if the net could be surveyed against several general attributes (say, N), and plotted in N-space. That would be some cool geography.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
All Transmeta really needs to do is give away some SDK that allows people to "plug in" their own ISA, or "flash" the rom or something. People /don't/ need to know the native destination ISA, they just need a mechanism for exploiting the chip's abilities by supplying their own ISAs. I think this would be great for Transmeta, because without breaking compatibility, they would gain all the ISA's that anybody wants to provide. The only issue is a change to the code morphing software spec/implementation /itself/. If this changes, then the SDK has to be re-released, and ISA's will have to be regenerated for the new software, etc.
I think they just want the ball in their park for a while, which is understandable.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
Computer components have been getter faster and faster. This may be the start of truly pervasive computing...pervasive in the sense that it will be everywhere, unnoticeable, and unexceptional. All the rules blur, then change when computing is implicitly and immediately accessible to everyone and everything, everywhere, any time. Think of electricity. First it was a novelty, powering the useful light bulb. But soon, when it became pervasive, huge new fields and inventions sprung up because of it. The time between articles proclaiming a new technology or discovery, and its application, get smaller and smaller. This might be the real thing (tm), the nodal point. We might now be starting to take our first step into Neuromancer or the Matrix.
Or this could just be another step in the mundane march of progress...what do I know?
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
Right...my post is not a rebuttal to yours, just an annotation.
I agree with you..."free" will is not necessarily that different from what we would call "fate". And this is because much of our "will" is determined at a level lower than consciousness (in my analogy the BIOS), and ultimately in chemicals, molecules, atoms.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
"If he's right, the dilemma is enormous: we have no particular place to go as a species. We lack a common or universal goal beyond our pre-determined biological nature."
Well...duh...
You must have missed Existentialism.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
"The standard analysis of why determinism prevents free will is that you can't choose to do something
besides your fate."
Or more simply that one state necessarily follows from subsequent states.
Think of our brain as an operating system: At the very lowest level, we have a hardcoded BIOS that pushes us to eat, sleep, reproduce, and whatever else is necessary for the survival of our offspring and genes. On top of this low layer, are many many layers of abstraction, until, at the top, we have something called "consciousness". Now, just as a multitasking operating system _appears_ to be running all programs at once, we _appear_ to be conscious, when it is really just many complicated permutations of very base motives, the lowest of which is eventually molecules and atoms. We have emergent behavior.
Just because I flee from a fire doesn't prove I have "free will", it just proves I have a programmed will to survive. That is my base reaction. Now we have many other layers put on top of that by our intelligence, or socialization. For example, I might appear "altruistic" if I risked my life to save someone else's life. Sure this appears to be "free will"...but it is only "free will" in the sense that I have been socialized and reprogrammed to believe it is in my best interest to save that person.
It's all atoms and molecules. There's no magic here.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
Perhaps you're not exactly the perfect person to answer this question, but it seems to me that many companies claim outlandishly large costs of "damage" running in the millions and hundreds of millions, when these things occur. In your opinion, are these claims justified, or are they just scare tactics?
(I know sites like eBay and Amazon, for example, do a lot of business, but really, millions of dollers lost? If I really wanted to buy the book, I could wait three hours till the site was back up, and they wouldn't lose any money. Where do these numbers come from?)
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
But weren't tooltips an adaptation of the original Mac bubbly tips that came up in thought clouds?
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
"Geeks/Hackers generally are socially inept, except among are own kind. Basically we don't fit into normal everyday society with non-geeks very well."
Yes...this is exactly the stereotype they reinforce. How ARE geeks/hackers going to be socially accepted if everybody else thinks they are like the Lone Gunmen?
The Lone Gunmen are usually portayed in a manner that reinforces stereotypes. I remember one episode where Mulder/Scully walk in to a dark room and they are huddled about playing Dungeons and Dragons, pictured as some sort of dark cabal.
Dangerousness is reinforced whenever they insidiously "hack" into some system.
etc.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
I'm a software guy and a hardware wannabe also...but I'm quite aware of pipelining. The fact remains that the pipeline is limited by the slowest component in it. If one of your pipeline stages is memory access, every other stage has to wait at least as long as it takes the memory access stage to complete, to continue on.
With multiple clocks, everything is working asynchronously at the limit of its own circuit. For simple circuits this will be very fast.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
Well, I subscribe to the creed that wealth is an accident that happens to you while you're pursuing your interests. Some of the most successful hackers never sought fame and fortune...it just happened to them. Take the whole Linux/Apache/ thing. Success happened accidentally while hackers were trying to do cool stuff. I think the worst thing you can do to your career as a "technologist" is force something, and the worst thing you can do to your hacker ethic is to "sell-out".
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
Well, ok...but we also use sidecar extensively which is a deamon that listens for callbacks on port on the client and prompts the user for their Kerberos passwd through the kerb libs. We have sidecar implemented pretty well on Windows and the Mac, but not so well, or not at all in *nix. I don't doubt that there are fine Kerberos packages out there, but integration is the problem. How exactly do we "prompt" a user at the command line, etc.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
"90% of Black on White crime is committed by Blacks against Whites"
Huh? Would 100% of Black on White crime be committed by Blacks against Whites. I mean, that is the _definition_ of "Black on White" crime right?
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
10K = 10 Kelvin
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla